The Supreme Court directed a school to pay Rupees Ten Lakhs to its peon for illegally depriving him appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak.

The Court was deciding an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which a writ petition of the candidate for being appointed to the post of Shikshan Sevak in the school was allowed.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, “Though learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the financial impact of depriving him for appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak in terms of the impugned judgment comes to ₹.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs) approximately, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the appellants are directed to pay a consolidated sum of ₹.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to the respondent no.1 on account of the financial loss incurred by him and for his non-appointment to the subject post. Needful shall be done within eight weeks.”

Advocate Adarsh Kumar Pandey appeared for the appellants while Advocate Vivek C. Solshe appeared for the respondents.

Brief Facts -

The respondent person was appointed as a Peon in the appellant school being run by the society in 1991. His appointment to the subject post was approved vide a letter and while working on the said post, in the year 2004, the respondent passed Bachelor of Arts examination from the University. In 2005, he passed the Bachelor of Physical Education Examination and thereafter, the Maharashtra State issued a Government Resolution for implementation of the revised Shikshan Sevak Yojana in aided Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools/Colleges, D.Ed. Colleges, and Sainik Schools in the State. In 2007, the State issued a fresh GR which left it to the States to develop a framework for appointment of teachers within the guidelines of the National Council of Teachers Education.

After updating the original GR, the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 was amended and the post of Shikshan Sevak was included in the definition Clause, i.e., Section 2(24A) and the consequential amendments were included by virtue of the Maharashtra Act XIV of 2007. It was the case of the respondent that on acquiring requisite qualifications for the said post, he submitted several representations to the school for being appointed but the same were not considered favourably. He approached the High Court and the case was decided in his favour. Hence, the school was before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in the above regard noted, “The records reveal that while issuing notice in the present appeal on 18th December, 2009, operation of the impugned judgment was stayed. As a result, the respondent no.5 has been continuing to discharge his duties in the respondent no.3-School as a Physical Education teacher, on the post of an Assistant Teacher. As noticed above, the respondent no.5 was duly served in the present appeal but he has elected not to appear or participate in the proceedings. Now that the impugned judgement has been upheld by this Court and the respondent no.1 has been held entitled to appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak w.e.f. 01st January, 2010 and on expiry of a period of three years reckoned therefrom, to the post of Assistant Teacher, this Court is required to consider balancing the equities.”

The Court observed that for the purposes of claiming seniority and retiral benefits, the notional date of his appointment to the post of Shikshan Sevak shall be reckoned as January 1, 2010. It directed that a letter be issued indicating the pay scale of the respondent by notionally computing it on the post of Shikshan Sevak and to the post of Assistant Teacher and furnish a copy thereof to the appellants within three months.

“… it is directed that in the event the post of a Physical Education Teacher is vacant and available in any of the schools/colleges being run by the appellant no.1-Society, he shall be duly accommodated on the post of an Assistant Teacher there. In the alternative, the respondent no.5 shall be considered by the State authorities for appointment in terms of Regulation 5 of the Act of 1977, as amended from time to time, on being declared as a surplus teacher. However, there shall not be any recovery of salary or emoluments from the respondent no.5 for the period during which he has rendered services with the appellant no.3 – School”, it further ordered.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the appeal.

Cause Title- Sant Bhagwan Baba Shikshan Mandal & Ors. v. Gunwant & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 405)


Appellants: Advocate Adarsh Kumar Pandey, AOR Shivaji M. Jadhav, Advocates Vignesh Singh, Apurva, Brij Kishor Sah, Prafulla, and Alok Kumar.

Respondents: Advocates Mr. Vivek C. Solshe, Varun V. Solshe, AOR Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocates Sachin Patil, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Geo Joseph, Durgesh Gupta, Risvi Muhammed, and Aditya Krishna.

Click here to read/download the Judgment